YDS: The Clare Spark Blog

August 8, 2015

The Moynihan Report (March 1965) and “instability” in “the black family”

Daniel Patrick Moynihan 1965

Daniel Patrick Moynihan 1965

This blog is about The Moynihan Report and the Politics of Controversy, written by sociologists Lee Rainwater and William L. Yancey, published by MIT Press in 1966, the gist of which turned out to be fine tuning the interactions between social scientists and the administrative state to correct the pathology viewed as inherent in the “matriarchal,” hence deteriorating, “black family.”

The Moynihan Report, owing to its author’s later prominence, has been publicized recently here: http://www.biographile.com/daniel-patrick-moynihans-leap-into-the-racially-charged-1960s/43315/, and was partly excerpted on History News Network, 8-7-15.

Where did Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a minor figure in the Department of Labor in the Lyndon Johnson administration get his argument and the impetus to write what was initially an internal secret report (but later partially leaked to the press that made fun of the notion that the male animal was a rooster trained to strut). There were several drivers to the Report: the growing civil rights movement, the unrest exemplified in the Mississippi Freedom Summer and urban riots in 1964, and most importantly, the book authored by black political scientist E. Franklin Frazier in 1957. Here is an excerpt from Frazier quoted by the authors of the 1966 gloss on the Report and its mixed reception:

“The widespread disorganization of family life among Negroes has affected practically every aspect of their community life and adjustments to the larger white world. Because of the absence of stability…there is a lack of traditions…With a fourth to a third of Negro families in cities without a male head, many Negro children suffer the initial handicap of not having the discipline and authority of the father in the home. Negro mothers…are forced to neglect their children who pick up all forms of socially disapproved behavior in the disorganized areas in which these families are concentrated.

“…the public schools cannot make up for the deficiency in family training…Out of such an environment come the large number of criminals and juvenile delinquents in the cities of the country.” (p.312)

(Clearly, Frazier had discarded his pre-war radicalism and had now come out on the side of Order, notwithstanding comments to the contrary in academe. https://www.bu.edu/bridge/archive/2002/08-30/scholars.htm.)

Return to Rainwater and Yancey’s extensive commentary on the Moynihan Report. Throughout their analysis, they complain that Moynihan’s report should have been kept secret from the general public, which they imply was too unacquainted with the feedback loop between economic conditions and family structure.

Besides the obvious example of Frazier, such (white) Harvard sociologists as Talcott Parsons and Erik Erikson advised the novice Moynihan (Rainwater was also a Harvard sociologist, while Yancey taught at Vanderbilt U.). Moynihan’s report blamed slavery and urbanization for the lamentable state of poor black families, and his attack on matriarchy does not sit well with modern feminism, for Moynihan, like Frazier, insisted that a strong father was necessary for healthy families. But in 1966, Protestants and their Jewish allies were less fearful of attacking the tenets of Catholicism, for these authors tell us that Catholic family welfare ideology informed Moynihan’s support of family-focused Big Government solutions.

Some of the pushback came from black “militant” civil rights leaders who wanted to continue anti-discrimination and other existing new laws, and all around poverty solutions, including job training, public education, justice, and “decent housing” that would deliver equality of results/life chances, as opposed to “liberty” (with the latter considered to be a [capitalist?] ruse opposed to “equality”).

Some black “militants” considered the Moynihan Report to be insulting to black males, and objected to the focus on the family, seen as victim-blaming.  Rather than the emphasis on “the tangled pathology” in the black family, such organizations as CORE preferred to blame the sickness of America (i.e., white racism).

In any case, the Moynihan Report supported black power and preferential treatment, responding above all, to urban riots in the summer of 1964 but ostensibly to a startling rise in black unemployment and hence increasing welfare payments. (But liberal academics were still fretting over urban unrest in 1968, as I showed here: https://clarespark.com/2010/07/18/white-elite-enabling-of-black-power/.)

Preparations for a Johnson administration-instigated national conference to discuss The Moynihan Report’s “findings” would be diverted by the massive billions diverted to supporting the Vietnam War, with the outcome that civil rights black activists now challenged the war itself.

Conclusion: By (understandably) advocating preferential treatment instead of dealing with class  (not “caste”) disparities and lily-white New Deal unionism (the solutions advocated by such black radicals as Ralph Bunche, Sam Dorsey, and L. Abram Harris in the 1930s: https://clarespark.com/2013/09/02/labor-day-2013/), the administrative state, aided by social psychologists and “moderate” sociologists, increased divisions in the electorate and finally aroused even more antagonism to statist solutions to “the Negro problem.”

Why did they do this? As I have argued previously, the overwhelming imperative to apply band-aids to structural problems in order to prevent red revolution, or to stop more moderate solutions such as school choice, only ripped the “social fabric” that organic conservatives sponsor.

What about the Irish, Polish, and Italian urban ethnics of the working-class who have taken up police work to control urban crime? The measures taken by “moderate conservatives” (the progressives), can be seen as directly leading to the confrontations between white police and lumpen black mobs in such places as Baltimore, Maryland, and Ferguson, Missouri.

Civil Rights activist John Lewis rose out of the movement to become a prominent Democrat, but the antagonisms his head wound embodied, disconcertingly remain.

John Lewis's fractured skull bandaged

John Lewis’s fractured skull bandaged

Advertisements

January 21, 2013

Citizen Obama, political pluralism and the elusive search for Unity

Raft of the Medusa

Raft of the Medusa

Although POTUS nodded in the direction of “the enduring strength of our Constitution” and quoted lines from the God-given Declaration of Independence, and with a cynical reference to “American exceptionalism,” the statism of Citizen Obama’s second inaugural brought us closer to the French Revolution, with its Jacobin emphasis on equality of condition, than to the American Revolution that promised a meritocracy grounded in equality of opportunity. (Recall that France, unlike England, always had a strong central state; recently France voted in a Socialist government that has levied a 75% income tax on the rich.)

What struck me about today’s awesome inauguration speech was its frank partisanship, indeed, its appeal to class warfare, but not only did Citizen Obama appeal solely to his Democratic constituency, he defined “the Nation” in terms that can only be described as anti-pluralist and either socialist or proto-fascist (see https://clarespark.com/2013/01/20/an-awesome-inauguration/, also https://clarespark.com/2012/09/05/proto-fascism-and-the-democrat-peoples-community/).  If Citizen Obama has his way, political pluralism will give way to one party dictatorship, perhaps to rule by executive decree. (See the juridical thought of Carl Schmitt, who made the transition from social democracy theorist to Nazi without difficulty.)

Many “rightist” pundits have noticed the offensive against the Republican Party, that reiterated accusations made by the hard Left during the waning New Deal years that Republicans were, by temperament and policy, Nazis. The line continues that all Republicans are Southern racists, while the Democratic Party, as led by Obama and his multiculturalist followers, are the true inheritors of the civil rights movement, making corrections and reparations to overcome the white male supremacy that was supposedly the basis for American nationality pre-Obama. In this, he has the support of the New Left and the American Studies academics—and all of the cultural studies crowd, who take pride in their freedom from “economic determinism.” In other words, they cannot explain the difference between the economic policies of Lord Maynard Keynes versus Friedrich Hayek versus Milton and Rose Friedman.

guilt and anxiety

But we must not push the analogy to the French Revolution too far. For the French Revolution came to signify war and Napoleon’s bourgeoisification of Europe.  Echoing (?) the infamous appeaser Neville Chamberlain, Obama stands for “peace in our time.” In other words, he is boiler plate anti-imperialist and antiwar, except for the class war necessarily waged on behalf of “the rising middle class,” his new name for what used to be called “the working class”.  Even progressives used to know a petit-bourgeois radical (Obama) when they saw one, but today’s progressives have abandoned accurate nomenclature for populist, triumphalist politics. “Off with their [Federalist] heads.”

Many of the pundits on Fox News recognized the speech for what it was (a socialist screed), while a few seemed to expect a call for a middle ground, that no man’s land where erstwhile progressives feel comfortable in making compromises for the sake of ‘social cohesion’ and ‘political stability’. These are the buzz words of ‘moderate’ conservatism, the “Democratic” inheritors of the New Deal  and Wilsonian “internationalism.”

With the country divided and anxious, this day of bogus unity and bogus reverence for the American Constitution can only be a caesura in an ongoing civil war that was present from the beginning of the United States. (For a recent installment see https://clarespark.com/2013/01/24/culture-wars-and-the-secular-progressives/.)

barack-obama-family-supreme-court-john-roberts-michelle-sasha-malia-inauguration

November 14, 2010

The ABC’s of Antisemitism

19th C. image of The Wandering Jew

[For an index to many of my blogs on antisemitism, see https://clarespark.com/2012/09/29/index-to-blogs-on-antisemitism/.]

Antisemitism entails much more than a direct assault upon Jewish life. But as a multifaceted part of the imagination, certain aspects of this phobia emerge at different moments in the history of the West.  These notes are a crude, first attempt to locate particular aspects of modern antisemitism in the turning points listed below. I list them so that readers can identify certain tropes that evoke images of the Bad Jew* even when Jews themselves are not directly under investigation.

It is widely recognized that Jews have come to represent modernity in the eyes of their enemies, but the entire history of the West contributes to the power of the antagonism.

Legacy of Greek antiquity: gloom and narcissism. Narcissus was in love with himself, hence deaf to cries from community, self-destructs. Matthew Arnold famously contrasted gloomy Hebraism with the sweetness and light of Hellenism, a distinction that Herman Melville, for one, internalized.

Legacy of New Testament antisemitism: lucre-loving hence materialistic, demonic, legalistic and unforgiving (Shylock); Christ-hating hence antithesis to Christian love; carnal “Chosen People” seek subjugation of all non-Jews. The Jewish God is wrathful and genocidal, transmitting these characteristics  to his “chosen” ones. Hence, “Wall Street” under the guise of “wealth creation” is out to “slaughter” the (non-Jewish) “middle class.” A Jewified (modern, secular) world is infested with bloodsucking vampires. (I do not deny that many Christians have denounced this legacy, and now stand with Jews against antisemitism and against anti-Israel policies. See http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-jews-should-know-about-christians.html).

Legacy of Reformation: Protestants seen as Church-destroying Jews, and as such lack reverence for established authority. These Faustians focus on worldliness as opposed to other-worldliness. The Christian myth of the repentant, indestructible Wandering Jew takes hold (see https://clarespark.com/2010/11/16/good-jews-bad-jews-and-wandering-jews/). Jews will always be alien, “a people apart,” even if they convert or are born into a family of converts.  They can never be rooted in the nation, no matter how assimilated they may appear to be (see the Nazi movie Der ewige Jude with its emphasis on the masked Jew).

Legacy of Scientific Revolution, Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and market societies/capitalism: the innovating (mad) scientist seeking perfection and direct contact with reality (cf. the contrasting views of Plato, Matthew Arnold, Nathaniel Hawthorne). The Jew becomes associated with the rise of the moral mother (Locke says mothers imprint tabula rasa), and misogyny results as woman becomes the Jew of the Home, the voice of conscience: clinging, criticizing, and kvetching. Romantic poets are attracted to Prometheus and the Romantic Wandering Jew myth as limited revolt against philistine (Jewish) materialists and their “leveling,” historicizing (i.e., desacralizing) analyses of the Bible, of “traditional” social structures and ideologies, with their utopian mishegas.

Legacy of German Romanticism/Aufklärung: Jews are natural destroyers of the Volk, Gemeinschaft (the organic community mystically bound by language, blood and soil). Jew becomes incarnation of selfish individualism, universal ethics, and resistance to the national, ethical, racial state. In Germany’s case, Deutschland is chosen by Fate to purify the world of the “Jewish” idea of individual responsibility and free will. The German Romantic idea of “national character” (the primacy of ethnicity over class) takes hold in American universities during the late 1960s, but was already trotted out in the nineteen teens by Randolph Bourne and Horace Kallen, in the latter case to oppose the rootless cosmopolitanism advocated by “proletarian internationalism.”

The Bolshevik triumph of October 1917. Antisemites often view all Jews as either communists or potential communists, latter-day self-righteous Jacobins bending human nature to make the new man and heaven on earth.** Even as conservative businessmen, Jews are agents of modernity, and modernity, having given birth to a new industrial working class,  spawned the likes of Marx and Lenin. Scholars of Hitler and the Nazis frequently neglect mentioning this crucial component of their antisemitism. Similarly, many Jewish scholars think it is irrational to conflate themselves as liberal capitalists with communists, whom they often vigorously oppose to protect social democracy.

Prominence of “Jewish” Communists in civil rights movement. It is no secret that persons of Jewish ancestry were prominent supporters of blacks in the civil rights movement–even during the 1930s, though with the rise of black nationalism, that relationship became strained to the breaking point. Although “Jews” who joined the Communist Party gave up their “particularist” Jewish identity to join “proletarian internationalism,” that renunciation means nothing to far right racists, whose antisemitism is intertwined with white supremacy. For them, Jews are not white people at all, but the red enemy who supports either the Democratic Party or some leftist variant. They may seize upon the supposedly “Jewish” Frankfurt School critical theorists as the source of decadence, though these same individuals (e.g. Adorno and Horkheimer) bonded with mainstream Protestant-progressive social psychologists, and abjured the “materialist” Enlightenment.

*By “Bad Jew” I do not mean a non-observant Jew as judged by orthodox Jews, but rather the antithesis of the Good Jew who is considered “useful” to European ruling classes, or who joins with upper-class businessmen as “socially responsible capitalists.” Hence the Good Jew is accepted insofar as s/he is “assimilated.” For more, see my blog Good Jews, Bad Jews, and Wandering Jews. https://clarespark.com/2010/11/16/good-jews-bad-jews-and-wandering-jews/.

**Crane Brinton, the influential Harvard historian characterized the Jacobins as possessed by “Hebraic fury” and in their self-deceiving, fanatical, revolutionary virtue, were allied to Calvinism. This link between the angry God of the Old Testament Jews and Calvinism is often applied to puritanism in general by organic conservative scholars. It is entirely ahistoric, for there is no one brand of puritanism. For a case study of how colonial puritans have been lumped together and stigmatized as persecuting, see https://clarespark.com/2010/05/15/blog-index-to-anne-hutchinson-series/.

Samuel Hirszenberg, 1899

Samuel Hirszenberg, 1899

Blog at WordPress.com.